0 Voturi pozitive0 Voturi negative

0 (de) vizualizări16 paginiAerodynamics

Oct 15, 2019

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

Aerodynamics

© All Rights Reserved

0 (de) vizualizări

Aerodynamics

© All Rights Reserved

- Star Tutorial 1
- Final Fe Fluid Practice Problems
- mit paper morrison
- X-foil manual
- Pop Bal.pdf
- 08-turb
- Performance and drag
- Liquid Circulation, Bubble Size Distributions, And Solids Movement in Two- And Three-phase Bubble Columns
- Mandorle
- Numerical and Experimental Study of a Transitional Separation Bubble
- 91319c0322fe806c99d6f57173a6e08b6c6b
- ps4.pdf
- Effect of mainstream air velocity on velocity profile over a rough flat surface
- Flushing Blasthole_Part I
- The Accuracy of Hydormeter Analysis for Fine-Grained Clay Particles
- The Accuracy of Hydormeter Analysis for Fine-Grained Clay Particles.docx
- KUK 2015-2017 M.tech Thermal Credit Based
- Chap 03.pdf
- Parachute.docx
- Literature Survey on Boundary Layer Flow Control

Sunteți pe pagina 1din 16

org

doi:10.1098/rsta.2010.0359

BY RICARDO GARCÍA-MAYORAL AND JAVIER JIMÉNEZ*

School of Aeronautics, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid,

28040 Madrid, Spain

The interaction of the overlying turbulent ﬂow with riblets, and its impact on their drag

reduction properties are analysed. In the so-called viscous regime of vanishing riblet

spacing, the drag reduction is proportional to the riblet size, but for larger riblets the

proportionality breaks down, and the drag reduction eventually becomes an increase. It

is found that the groove cross section A+g is a better characterization of this breakdown

than the riblet spacing, with an optimum A+

1/2

g ≈ 11. It is also found that the breakdown

is not associated with the lodging of quasi-streamwise vortices inside the riblet grooves,

or with the inapplicability of the Stokes hypothesis to the ﬂow along the grooves, but

with the appearance of quasi-two-dimensional spanwise vortices below y + ≈ 30, with

typical streamwise wavelengths lx+ ≈ 150. They are connected with a Kelvin–Helmholtz-

like instability of the mean velocity proﬁle, also found in ﬂows over plant canopies and

other surfaces with transpiration. A simpliﬁed stability model for the ribbed surface

approximately accounts for the scaling of the viscous breakdown with A+ g.

1. Introduction

Riblets are small surface protrusions aligned with the direction of ﬂow, which

confer an anisotropic roughness to a surface. They are one of the few techniques

that have been successfully applied to the reduction of the skin friction in

turbulent boundary layers, both in the laboratory and in full aerodynamic

conﬁgurations.

Riblets of very different geometries have been tested in wind tunnels,

demonstrating drag reductions of the order of 10 per cent over ﬂat plates.

Walsh & Lindemann [1] tested several shapes, including triangular, notched-peak,

sinusoidal and U-shaped riblets, obtaining maximum drag reductions of 7–8% for

riblet spacings of approximately 15 wall units. A fairly broad early review was

that of Walsh [2], and more recent ones are those of Choi [3], who emphasizes the

work of the ERCOFTAC drag reduction group, and Bushnell [4], which is oriented

towards drag-reduction techniques for aircraft. In his review on turbulent ﬂows

over rough walls, Jiménez [5] viewed drag reduction by riblets as a transitional

roughness effect.

*Author for correspondence (jimenez@torroja.dmt.upm.es).

aerodynamics: progress and prospects’.

Drag reduction by riblets 1413

allow larger riblet dimensions and better control of the geometry, although

typically at lower Reynolds numbers and shorter development lengths than

wind tunnels. For example, Bechert et al. [6] conducted extensive tests

on blade-shaped and trapezoidal-groove riblets, and proposed the latter as

a compromise between optimum performance and practical fabrication and

maintenance.

A recurrent theme of riblet research has been the motivation to study biological

surfaces, which are often geometrically complex. Bruse et al. [7] conducted oil

channel tests of shark-skin replicas, hairy surfaces and riblets with adjustable

geometry, and Bechert et al. [8] reviewed the drag-reduction properties of

biological surfaces and their replicas. More recently, Itoh et al. [9] tested the

ﬂow over seal fur, obtaining drag reductions of 12 per cent.

Off-design conditions have also been considered. We will discuss later the

consequences of yaw and tip erosion, but we should mention here the effect of

adverse pressure gradients, ﬁrst reviewed by Walsh [2]. Although that condition

is probably not the deciding factor in many practical applications, because

the skin friction of adverse pressure gradient boundary layers tends to be low,

pressure gradients of either sign are present over large areas of most practical

conﬁgurations, and their effect on riblets remains uncertain. Walsh [2] found that

riblet performance improved under adverse pressure gradients, but mentioned

contradictory results by other authors, which he justiﬁed by the difﬁculty of

using drag balances under those conditions. Coustols & Savill [10] summarized

the results of several previous investigations, and concluded that the pressure

gradients typically found over aircraft wings, whether adverse or favourable,

had relatively little effect on the performance of riblets, while Debisschop &

Nieuwstadt [11] tested riblets in a wind tunnel with dimensionless adverse

pressure gradients an order of magnitude larger than those discussed in Walsh [2],

and found that the maximum drag reduction of triangular riblets could increase

roughly from 7 to 13 per cent.

Riblets have been used successfully to reduce the overall drag of aerofoils

[12] and aircraft [13] with optimum riblet spacings of the order of 30–70 mm.

Szodruch [14] reports on the ﬂight tests of a commercial aeroplane (Airbus 320)

with riblets over 70 per cent of its surface, and estimates an overall 2 per cent

drag reduction, based on the fuel savings obtained. A summary of those tests,

including maintenance and durability issues, can be found in Robert [15]. The

discrepancy between the optimum laboratory performance and full conﬁgurations

is probably to be expected from any method based on the reduction of skin

friction. Not all the drag of an aircraft is friction [16], and much of the latter

is distributed over three-dimensional or geometrically complex areas where drag

control is difﬁcult to optimize. Note that those limitations might not apply to

conﬁgurations that are very different from commercial aircraft, such as gliders or

other high-performance vehicles.

There is anecdotal evidence of the successful use of riblets in applications

other than aircraft, particularly in sporting events in which cost and maintenance

considerations are less important than in commercial aviation. The hulls of the

USA challengers in the America’s Cup 1987 and 2010 sailing competitions were

ﬁtted with riblets, which had been banned by the regulations in intervening years.

Both challenges succeeded, although it is impossible to determine whether riblets

1414 R. García-Mayoral and J. Jiménez

0.1

optimum

Δt/t0

performance

0

ms

k-roughness

viscous regime

−0.1

0 20 40

s+

Figure 1. Deﬁnition of the drag-reduction regimes observed over triangular riblets with 60◦ tip

angle, as a function of the peak-to-peak distance s + . Adapted from Bechert et al. [6].

had any real role. Riblets were also used in the 1984 Olympic rowing events, but

they were subsequently forbidden in ofﬁcial racing, together with all other devices

that ‘modify the properties of the boundary layer’.

The physical mechanism of the drag reduction by riblets has been investigated

in detail, although some aspects remain controversial. In particular, mean and

local velocity proﬁles and turbulent statistics within and above the riblet grooves

have been reported for experiments in wind tunnels [17–19], water channels [20]

and numerical experiments [21–26].

Walsh & Lindemann [1] showed that the Reynolds number dependence of the

effect of riblets on the skin friction could be expressed in large part in terms of the

riblet dimensions expressed in wall units, L+ = Lut /n, where n is the kinematic

viscosity and ut = t1/2 is the friction velocity deﬁned in terms of the skin friction

t, where we have assumed unit ﬂuid density for simplicity. The same will be

done throughout the paper. A popular measure of the riblet size L is the groove

spacing, s, but other dimensions, such as the depth h, have also been used. We

will propose below an alternative that collapses the experiments better, and that

has some theoretical support. Figure 1 shows a typical curve of drag reduction as

a function of the spacing, in which different drag regimes can be deﬁned according

to how the drag depends on s + . In the viscous regime, formally s + 1 but in

practice s + 10–15, the contribution of the nonlinear terms to the ﬂow within and

in the immediate neighbourhood of the riblet grooves is negligible and, if t0 is the

skin friction for the smooth wall, the drag reduction DR = −Dt/t0 is proportional

+

to s + . The viscous regime breaks down near s + = sopt , the optimum spacing for

which drag reduction is maximum, and, eventually, the reduction becomes a

drag increase, adopting a typical k-roughness behaviour [5]. The parameters that

determine the optimum performance of a given riblet are its optimum size and

the slope of the drag curve in the viscous regime. Both depend on the geometry,

but the qualitative drag curve is always as just described.

This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 considers the suitability of the

parameters traditionally used to scale the drag-reduction curves, and proposes

an alternative. Section 3 reviews the viscous regime of drag reduction, including

Drag reduction by riblets 1415

20

S

opt

s+ Ag h

10

0 0.5 1.0

Ag/s2

Figure 2. Riblet spacing for maximum drag reduction, as a function of the groove aspect ratio,

Ag /s 2 . Triangles, triangular riblets; inverted triangles, notched top and ﬂat valley riblets; circles,

scalloped semicircular grooves; squares, blade riblets [6]. Error bars have been estimated from the

drag measurement errors given in the original reference.

the effects of yaw and tip rounding, and §4 centres on the range of optimum

drag reduction, with particular emphasis on the reasons for the breakdown of the

viscous regime, and on the linear stability of the ﬂow. The conclusions are then

summarized.

We saw above that the drag reduction by riblets is a function of the riblet size

expressed in wall units, and that it has become common to characterize that size

by the spacing s + . We now enquire whether some other choice of riblet dimensions

describes experimental evidence better. Considering a generic length L, the drag

behaviour in the viscous regime is characterized by the slope

v(Dt/t0 )

mL = − , (2.1)

vL+ L=0

+

so that DR ≈ mL L . We will see in §3 that this slope can usually be computed

+

theoretically, but a successful parameter should also predict the location Lopt

of the breakdown of the linear behaviour, and collapse as much as possible the

experimental drag curves for L Lopt . An approximation that has often been

+

used is that sopt ≈ 15, but this quantity is a function of the riblet geometry. As an

example, ﬁgure 2 shows the optimum spacing against the ratio of the groove cross

section to the square of the spacing, Ag /s 2 , for several riblet shapes. For a given

+

spacing, higher values of Ag /s 2 imply deeper grooves, and, although sopt is always

in the range 10–20, it is clear from the ﬁgure that deeper grooves break down

earlier, and that their maximum drag reduction is achieved for narrower riblets.

Using experimental results from Bechert et al. [6] for triangular, trapezoidal,

blade and scalloped riblets, García-Mayoral & Jiménez [26] tested alternative

scalings to ﬁnd whether it was possible to express drag reduction in terms of a

1416 R. García-Mayoral and J. Jiménez

(a) 20 (b) 10

−DR/ms

0 0

−20 −10

0 20 40 0 10 20

s+

Figure 3. Drag-reduction curves of diverse riblets, reduced to a common viscous slope. Drag

reduction (a) as a function of the spacing s + and (b) as a function of the square root of the

groove cross section, +

g . Open triangles, experimental results from Bechert et al. [6]; ﬁlled circles,

direct numerical simulation results from García-Mayoral & Jiménez [26].

geometric parameter that captured both the inﬂuence of the riblet spacing and

shape. The best results were achieved for the square root of the groove cross

section, + + 1/2

g = (Ag ) . The optimum values of s + or h + have scatters of the order

of 40 per cent, while the optimum + g only varies by approximately 10 per cent

around + g,opt 10.7 ± 1.0, for all the geometries reviewed.

Figure 3 compares experimental drag curves for a wide variety of riblet

geometries, reduced with the appropriate viscous slope to compensate for the

differences in viscous performance. The ﬁgure shows that there is good collapse

of the data with + +

g , at least for g 15. For the different geometries portrayed,

DRmax is roughly 83 per cent of the value that would result from extrapolating

the linear viscous regime up to + g,opt . The approximation

DRmax = 0.83 m +

g,opt ≈ 8.9 m , (2.2)

using a ﬁxed +g,opt = 10.7, is quite accurate for conventional riblets. That is tested

in ﬁgure 4a, which compares experimental values of m and DRmax . Even for

riblets with depth-to-width ratios as low as 0.2, the error of the approximation

(2.2) is below 20 per cent.

However, it should be stressed that, although + g collapses the drag curves

better than s + or h + for conventional geometries, there is no reason why it

should do the same for unconventional conﬁgurations, such as the ﬁbre riblets

in Bruse et al. [7], the seal fur surface proposed by Itoh et al. [9] or the T-shaped

riblets mentioned in Walsh [2]. Taking the latter as examples, the grooves become

increasingly isolated from the overlying ﬂow as the wall-parallel segments of the

T-fences close into each other, but the groove area (or the groove spacing) changes

little. For the limit of fully sealed grooves, the geometry would behave as a

ﬂat surface, and modifying + g should have no performance impact. The scaling

+

with g can only be considered as an empirical curve ﬁt that works better than

others for the experiments on existing geometries, but which should not be used

Drag reduction by riblets 1417

(a) (b)

0.1

0.1

DRmax

Figure 4. (a) Maximum drag reduction DRmax as a function of the experimental viscous slope m .

The solid line represents equation (2.2). (b) Experimental values of the viscous slope, as a function

of the theoretical protrusion height. The two straight lines are m0 = 0.66 and 0.785. In both (a) and

(b), triangles, triangular riblets; inverted triangles, trapezoidal grooves; circles, scalloped grooves;

squares, blades. Filled symbols are results from Walsh & Lindemann [2] and Walsh [1] and open

ones from Bechert et al. [6].

uncritically for conﬁgurations that are very different from conventional ones. On

the other hand, some theoretical justiﬁcation for its use in conventional riblets is

provided in §4.

to describe well the behaviour of riblets in the viscous regime. From here on, we

will denote the streamwise, wall-normal and spanwise coordinates by x, y and z,

respectively, and the corresponding velocity components by u, v and w.

There is a thin near-wall region in turbulent ﬂows over smooth walls where

viscous effects are dominant, nonlinear inertial effects can be neglected, and the

mean velocity proﬁle is linear. Its thickness is 5–10 wall units [27]. From the point

of view of a small protrusion in this layer, the outer ﬂow can be represented as

a time-dependent, but otherwise uniform shear. Riblets destroy this uniformity

near the wall but, if s + is small enough, the ﬂow still behaves as a uniform

shear for y h. Because the equations of motion are locally linear, the riblets are

uniform in the streamwise direction, and the shear varies only slowly with x when

compared with riblet dimensions, the problem reduces to two uncoupled two-

dimensional sub-problems in the z–y cross plane. The ﬁrst one is the longitudinal

ﬂow of u, driven at y + 1 by a streamwise shear

u ∝ y − Du , (3.1)

and the second one is the transverse ﬂow of v and w, driven by

w ∝ y − Dw and v = 0. (3.2)

1418 R. García-Mayoral and J. Jiménez

Far from the wall, the effect of the riblets reduces to the virtual origins Du

and Dw [28]. Bechert & Bartenwerfer [29] had suggested that Du was the

explanation of the drag reduction, essentially because it moved turbulence away

from the wall, but Luchini et al. [30] noted that the important quantity was

the offset Dh = Dw − Du , the ‘protrusion height’, which is independent of any

arbitrary reference wall position. Intuitively, if the cross-ﬂow has a higher virtual

origin than the longitudinal one (Dh > 0), the spanwise ﬂow induced by the

overlying streamwise vortices is impeded more severely than over a smooth wall.

The streamwise vortices are displaced away from the wall, and the turbulent

mixing of streamwise momentum is reduced. Since this mixing is responsible

for the high local shear near the wall [31], its reduction results in a lower skin

friction. The numerical calculation of Dh only involves the two stationary two-

dimensional Stokes problems for Du and Dw , which are computationally much

less intensive than the three-dimensional, time-dependent, turbulent ﬂow over a

ribbed wall.

The relation between protrusion height and drag is modiﬁed by the effect of the

rest of the boundary layer velocity proﬁle. The classical theory of wall turbulence

is that surface manipulations only modify the intercept of the logarithmic velocity

proﬁle, while both the Kármán constant, k ≈ 0.4, and the wake function are

unaffected [32]. The free-stream velocity, Ud , can then be expressed as

1/2

2

Ud+ = = k−1 log d+ + B, (3.3)

cf

B includes both the near-wall intercept and the contribution from the ‘wake’

component. The effect of a given ribbed surface would be to change B, which is

equivalent to the ‘roughness function’ used to characterize rough surfaces [5]. For

constant Ud and small relative variations of the friction, it follows from equation

(3.3) that

Dcf Dt DB

= =− , (3.4)

cf 0 t0 (2cf 0 ) −1/2 + (2k)−1

where the ﬁrst term in the denominator is due to the change of ut in Ud+ , and

the second one comes from the corresponding change in d+ . Comparison between

riblets at different Reynolds numbers should be done in terms of DB, not of Dt/t0 ,

and the same is true when reducing experimental data to practical applications.

The classical theory of wall turbulence suggests that, if the riblet size is much

smaller than d, which holds easily in the drag-reducing range, the effect of riblets

should be conﬁned to the near-wall layer, and that any change in B should only

depend on the geometry of the riblets scaled in wall units. Note that equation (3.4)

predicts that riblets lose effectiveness at high d+ , such as in practical aerodynamic

conﬁgurations, but only through the logarithmically slow decrease in cf 0 .

Because of the linearity of the viscous regime, the change DB should be

proportional to the protrusion height Dh + ,

DB = m0 Dh + , (3.5)

Drag reduction by riblets 1419

with a universal coefﬁcient m0 . That was tested by Jiménez [33], who performed

direct simulations of channels at very low d+ , in which the offset of the boundary

conditions was modelled independently of the presence of actual riblets. He

obtained m0 ≈ 0.66. A different argument by Bechert et al. [6], based on the

uniform translation of the velocity proﬁle, suggests m0 ≈ 0.785. Equation (3.5) is

tested against experiments in ﬁgure 4b, but the experimental scatter is too large to

distinguish between the two coefﬁcients, or even to decide on the applicability of

equation (3.5). At least some of the scatter is due to experimental artefacts. Wind

tunnel and oil channel experiments are not strictly comparable, mostly because

of the very different development lengths of the two set-ups, but also because

of the different levels of geometric control, not always in the expected direction.

For example, the open squares in ﬁgure 4 are blade riblets from Bechert et al. [6].

Those with crosses were mounted on a different base than those without them, and

they agree better with the theory. Bechert noted the discrepancy, and repeated

a few experiments after sealing the riblet base, increasing the drag reduction by

about one-ﬁfth. Similar caveats apply to the other riblets in the ﬁgure, including

those that appear to agree with the theory.

However, if we believe the theoretical predictions in spite of the experimental

ambiguities, equations (3.5) and (3.4) can be combined in a formula for the viscous

drag-reduction slope m that only depends on Stokes calculations,

m0 v(Dh)

m = . (3.6)

(2cf 0 )−1/2 + (2k)−1 vg

The results could then be used in the equivalent of ﬁgures 4a or 3b to predict the

riblet performance, at least up to the limit of optimal drag reduction.

The tools discussed above can be used to make useful predictions of the

behaviour of riblets in off-design situations. A simple case is the effect of a

misalignment angle q between the riblets and the ﬂow, which was ﬁrst measured

experimentally by Walsh [2]. He found that its effect on drag reduction was

negligible up to q = 15◦ , which has been conﬁrmed several times since then. The

experiments also ﬁnd that the drag reduction vanishes at q = 25–35◦ , and that

the maximum drag increase occurs for q = 90◦ . A list of relevant references can

be found in the paper by Koeltzsch et al. [34].

Consider now the viscous regime. Since the problem is linear, the longitudinal

and transverse velocity with respect to the free stream can be projected into the

frame of reference of the riblets, with the result that the offsets with respect to the

ﬂow are linear combinations of the offsets of perfectly aligned riblets, and that

the protrusion height decays with the yaw as Dh(q) = cos(2q)Dh(0) [35]. That

agrees qualitatively with the experiments mentioned above.

On the other hand, that simple dependence does not extend away from the

viscous regime. Hage et al. [35] reported on the effect of yaw on riblets near the

optimum spacing, and found a typically larger geometry-dependent degradation

than in the viscous case, increasing strongly as s + exceeds the optimum value.

Since the viscous breakdown is an indication of the effect of nonlinearity on the

riblets, it is not surprising that the linear predictions do not apply in that limit.

1420 R. García-Mayoral and J. Jiménez

0.15

0.10

0.05

0 0.05 0.10 0.15

R/s

Figure 5. Protrusion height of rounded peak riblets, scaled with the characteristic length scale

g = (Ag )1/2 as a function of the peak radius of curvature. Filled inverted triangles, triangular

riblet with tip angle 60◦ ; open triangles, triangular riblet, 45◦ ; open circles, blade riblet, h/s = 0.5

and thickness t/s = 0.15; ﬁlled circles, blade riblet, h/s = 0.5 and t/s = 0.25.

Another effect that can be analysed using the results of the previous two

sections is riblet erosion, which is a major concern for industrial applications.

Walsh [37] measured drag reductions for triangular riblets with rounded peaks,

ﬁnding a performance loss of up to 40 per cent for a tip radius R ≈ 0.08s. He found

no signiﬁcant performance degradation from the rounding of the groove bottoms.

We can infer from the discussion in §2 that the details of the tip geometry

should not affect signiﬁcantly the viscous breakdown, because they barely modify

the groove cross section. That is supported by the experiments of Bechert et al. [6],

who tested blade and scalloped geometries in which only the tip thickness

changed. The maximum drag reductions changed with the tip thickness, but not

the optimum s + , suggesting that the differences in performance were due to the

changes in the slope of the drag-reduction curve in the viscous regime.

Viscous results for different geometries with tip rounding are presented

in ﬁgure 5. The triangular riblets show a dramatic performance decrease, in

agreement with Walsh [37], but the protrusion heights for ﬂat-top blades, which

perform worse for R = 0 than the sharp triangles, change little with tip rounding,

and even increase slightly with growing radii. It is common knowledge [6,30] that

sharper riblets have higher protrusion heights. Tip rounding reduces the sharpness

of those conﬁgurations, and degrades their performance, but the rounding of

the tips of initially blunt blades in a sense sharpens them, thus improving their

performance. For practical applications in which erosion is an issue, it is probably

preferable to use riblets that do not depend initially too much on the sharpness

of their tips.

the viscous regime. This is a key issue in riblet design, because we have seen that

the optimum drag reduction is proportional to the riblet size at breakdown, and

using larger riblets would lead to better optimum performance.

Drag reduction by riblets 1421

(a)

102

l+z

101

102 103 102 103 102 103 102 103

l+x l+x l+x l+x

(b) 40

y+

x+

Figure 6. (a) Premultiplied two-dimensional cospectra of the Reynolds shear stress at y + ≈ 4 above

the riblet tips, for blade riblets of thickness t/s = 0.25, from García-Mayoral & Jiménez [26]. From

left to right, +g ≈ 13, 15, 17 and 20. The superimposed solid contour lines correspond to the

smooth-wall case. The contour increments are 0.0035ut2 . The thick horizontal line to the left of

each plot marks the riblet spacing, and the thin rectangle is the spectral region isolated in ﬁgure 7.

(b) Detail near the wall of the instantaneous streamlines of the z-averaged perturbation u–v ﬂow,

for + +

g ≈ 17, in a simulation box with Lz ≈ 850. The solid lines correspond to clockwise-rotating

rollers, and the separation between streamlines is 1.3n.

The theories proposed in the literature fall into two broad groups. The ﬁrst

one is that the effect of the riblets on the cross-ﬂow loses effectiveness once

they move beyond the Stokes regime. For example, Goldstein & Tuan [24]

suggested that the deterioration is due to the generation of secondary streamwise

vorticity over the riblets, because the unsteady cross-ﬂow separates and sheds

small-scale vortices that create extra dissipation. However, it is known that

spanwise wall oscillations, which also presumably introduce unsteady streamwise

vorticity, can decrease drag [38], and that spanwise boundary conditions that

inhibit the creation of secondary wall vorticity can increase it [39], suggesting

that the presence of extra vorticity near the wall need not be detrimental for

drag reduction.

The second group of theories assumes that the observed optimum wavelength,

s + ≈ 10–20, is related to the scale of the turbulent structures in the wall region,

such as in the observations by Choi et al. [21], Suzuki & Kasagi [20] and Lee & Lee

[19], that the increase in drag coincides with the lodging of the quasi-streamwise

vortices within the riblet grooves. However, all those observations are for s + =

30–40, well past the optimum size.

García-Mayoral & Jiménez [26] recently documented a different scenario in a

series of direct numerical simulation experiments with riblets spanning the full

range of sizes from drag reduction to drag increase. They observed, for riblet sizes

around the optimum, the formation of near-wall spanwise vortex rollers whose

intensity grows rapidly with the riblet size. Those structures can be seen in the

two-dimensional spectra of the ﬂow variables, shown in ﬁgure 6a for the Reynolds

shear stress t = −uv , and their dimensions for different riblet sizes remain

essentially constant in wall units. They have streamwise wavelengths lx+ ≈ 150,

and only exist below y + ≈ 30 when y + is referred to the plane of the riblet tips.

1422 R. García-Mayoral and J. Jiménez

0.15

Dcf*/cf*, R

0

−0.15

0 10 20

Figure 7. Break-up of the drag reduction curve, as deﬁned in equation (4.1). Open triangles, slip

term; open circles, full Reynolds stress term; ﬁlled circles, Reynolds stress term calculated only

within the spectral region outlined in ﬁgure 6a; dashed line, full approximate drag reduction,

Dcf∗ /cf∗ .

They are long in the spanwise direction, extending from lz+ ≈ 50 to the full

channel width. An example can be seen in ﬁgure 6b, which shows instantaneous

spanwise-averaged streamlines in the x–y plane. The rollers are centred at

y + ≈ 10–15, and penetrate slightly into the riblet grooves. The streamwise

separation between rollers of the same sign is lx+ ≈ 150, in agreement with the

spectra. Note that, since this ﬁgure is a spanwise average over a box with

Lz+ ≈ 850, the aspect ratio of the surviving rollers is at least 10 with respect to

x and 30 with respect to y, implying a quasi-two-dimensional phenomenon in an

x–y plane.

Although, to our knowledge, those structures have not been reported before,

they can be seen, in retrospect, in some of the visualizations of Goldstein et al. [23]

and Chu & Karniadakis [22], and it is interesting that, even in conditions

very different from ours, their streamwise wavelengths are also in the range

lx+ = 100–200.

The new structures account for most of the degradation of riblet performance

with size. Consider two channels with identical half-width, d, and centreline

velocity Ud , one of them with riblets (R), and the other without (S). Deﬁne

an approximate wall friction, u∗2 = −(vx P)d, as the extrapolation of the total

stress, t(y) + nvy U , to y = 0, which is the plane of the riblet tips. Note that

this is not the skin friction that should be used in the true friction coefﬁcient

of the ribbed channels, because it neglects the effect of the streamwise pressure

gradient over the cross section of the grooves, but it has the same qualitative

behaviour as the real one, and can be used for the present argument. That

can be seen by comparing the dashed line in ﬁgure 7, which is the friction

coefﬁcient computed in this way, with the ﬁlled circles in ﬁgure 3b, which are

the true friction coefﬁcients for the same cases. A complete treatment of the

following discussion can be found in García-Mayoral & Jiménez [26]. Integrating

the mean momentum equation for the two channels and deﬁning the approximate

friction coefﬁcient as cf∗ = 2u∗2 /Ud2 , it can be shown by integrating the momentum

Drag reduction by riblets 1423

equation between the planes of the riblet tips that the drag change owing to the

riblets is

d∗

Dcf∗ U0,R 1 R

cf ,R Ud,R Ud,R 0 R

where quantities with asterisks are normalized with their own u∗ , and subscripts

refer to the channel type. The two terms on the right-hand side are plotted

independently in ﬁgure 7. The ﬁrst one is the slip velocity at the plane of the

riblet tips, owing to the presence of the grooves, and always reduces skin friction.

That is essentially the mechanism of drag reduction in the viscous regime,

and it is interesting that it remains proportional to the riblet size across the

ﬁgure, even after the drag starts to increase. The slip velocity in ﬁgure 7 follows

almost exactly the predictions of the longitudinal Stokes problem (3.1), even

for the larger riblets, showing that the deterioration of the drag is not due to

the breakdown of the viscous hypothesis within the groove. It turns out that

the velocities within the groove are small enough that their Reynolds numbers

remain small.

The deterioration is due to the extra Reynolds stress in the second term of

equation (4.1), whose integrand is small everywhere except near y = 0, because

the two stresses have been scaled to approximately coincide far from the wall.

Moreover, the ﬁgure includes, in open symbols, the integral of the full Reynolds

stress, and, in ﬁlled ones, the result of considering only the cospectrum in the

spectral region of the new structures, 65 ≤ lx+ ≤ 290, lz+ ≥ 50 and y + 35. It is

clear that the stresses responsible for the drag degradation are those of the new

spanwise structures.

The formation of structures perpendicular, rather than parallel, to the riblets

may seem surprising, but it is not completely unexpected. Similar spanwise rollers

have been reported over vegetable canopies [40,41], and over permeable [42]

and porous walls [43]. The length scale of the structures varies depending on

the particular problem, but, although few quantitative analyses exist in the

literature [42,44], the phenomenon has always been attributed to a Kelvin–

Helmholtz-like instability. In essence, the mean proﬁle of a boundary layer

almost has an inﬂection point at the wall, and the reason that it remains

inviscidly stable is that the impermeability condition, v = 0, precludes the

antisymmetric unstable eigenfunctions characteristic of Kelvin–Helmholtz. Once

any modiﬁcation of the wall allows local transpiration, the inﬂection-point

instability reappears.

García-Mayoral & Jiménez [26] adapted that general idea to ribbed surfaces.

The conceptual model is that the longitudinal Stokes ﬂow along the grooves is

driven by the pressure variation of the overlying turbulent ﬂow, and that the

resulting longitudinal variations of the velocity within the grooves create a wall-

normal transpiration that acts as a boundary condition for an inviscid Rayleigh

equation for linearized perturbations around the mean velocity proﬁle in y > 0.

The boundary condition has the form

nv

(vt + U vx )vy v = U
vx v ∓ , (4.2)

Lw3

1424 R. García-Mayoral and J. Jiménez

(a) 0.2

s+Imax (b) 0.4

Lw/lg

0.3

0

0 6 12 0 0.5 1.0

L+w Ag/s2

Figure 8. (a) Maximum growth rate of the transpiration instability in turbulent channels, as a

function of the parameter Lw + deﬁned in equation (4.3). Dashed line, d+ = 185; solid line, 550;

ﬁlled circles, 950; open triangles, 2000. (b) Ratio Lw /g , for conventional riblets. Filled inverted

triangles, triangular riblets; ﬁlled circles, scalloped grooves; open squares, blade riblets. The solid

lines connect riblets of the same type with equal tip width, which decreases in the direction of

the arrow.

where the two signs of the last term apply, respectively, to the upper and

lower walls and U
is the gradient of the mean velocity at the wall. The new

parameter Lw can be interpreted as a length scale for the groove cross section,

and is deﬁned as

−1

Lw = s

3

f dy dz, (4.3)

Ag

groove, vx P = −n, and satisﬁes V2 f = −1. It has dimensions of length squared

and depends only on the groove geometry. The ﬂow is unstable for all Lw > 0, but

ﬁgure 8a shows that the instability only becomes signiﬁcant for Lw+ 4, essentially

independently of the Reynolds number of the ﬂow above the wall.

The values of Lw for several conventional riblet shapes are compiled in ﬁgure 8b,

which shows that Lw ≈ 0.35 g for groove aspect ratios larger than Ag /s 2 ≈ 0.4.

Together with the stability threshold just mentioned, this result suggests that

the ﬂow becomes unstable above + g ≈ 11, giving some theoretical support to the

scaling of the drag curves found empirically in §2.

5. Conclusions

We have reviewed the regimes for drag reduction in ribbed surfaces, with

particular emphasis on the practical information that can be extracted from

the viscous regime, and on the conditions under which that regime breaks

down. We have shown that the existing experiments for the location of the

breakdown collapse better with a new length scale, + g = Ag

+ 1/2

, based on the

groove area, than with more classical choices such as the riblet spacing or depth.

Drag reduction by riblets 1425

The best estimate for optimum drag reduction is + g 10.7, which, together with

the drag slope in the viscous limit, can be used to predict riblet performance

within 20 per cent. We have shown that this probably predicts the effect of

tip erosion, which, somewhat surprisingly, is not always deleterious, but that

the effect of yaw for optimized riblets is only qualitatively predicted by the

viscous regime.

Using direct simulations of ribbed channels spanning the range from viscous

drag reduction to drag increase, we have shown that the degradation for

large riblets of the linear regime of drag reduction is not connected with

the breakdown of the Stokes behaviour of the longitudinal velocity along the

riblet grooves. Even when the drag is already increasing, the slip velocity

at the plane of the riblet tips remains proportional to the riblet size. The

extra drag comes from a system of spanwise vortices below y + ≈ 30, with

dimensions that scale in wall units, independently of the riblet size. We have

connected those rollers to a Kelvin–Helmholtz-like instability common to other

systems with surface transpiration, such as canopies, and permeable and porous

surfaces, and we have described a model for ribbed surfaces that provides some

theoretical justiﬁcation for the experimental scaling of the breakdown with the

groove area.

This work was supported in part by the CICYT grant TRA2009-11498, and by the sixth framework

AVERT programme of the European Commission, AST5-CT-2006-030914. R.G.-M. was supported

by an FPI fellowship from the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science.

References

1 Walsh, M. J. & Lindemann, A. M. 1984 Optimization and application of riblets for turbulent

drag reduction. AIAA paper 84-0347.

2 Walsh, M. J. 1990 Riblets. In Viscous drag reduction in boundary layers (eds D. M. Bushnell &

J. N. Hefner), pp. 203–261. New York, NY: AIAA.

3 Choi, K.-S. 2000 European drag-reduction research—recent developments and current status.

Fluid Dyn. Res. 26, 325–335. (doi:10.1016/S0169-5983(99)00030-1)

4 Bushnell, D. M. 2003 Aircraft drag reduction—a review. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 217, 1–18.

(doi:10.1243/095441003763031789)

5 Jiménez, J. 2004 Turbulent ﬂows over rough walls. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 36, 173–196.

(doi:10.1146/annurev.ﬂuid.36.050802.122103)

6 Bechert, D. W., Bruse, M., Hage, W., der Hoeven, J. G. T. V. & Hoppe, G. 1997 Experiments

on drag-reducing surfaces and their optimization with adjustable geometry. J. Fluid Mech. 338,

59–87. (doi:10.1017/S0022112096004673)

7 Bruse, M., Bechert, D. W., der Hoeven, J. G. T. V., Hage, W. & Hoppe, G. 1993 Experiments

with conventional and with novel adjustable drag-reducing surfaces. In Near-wall turbulent ﬂows

(eds R. M. C. So, C. G. Speziale & B. E. Launder), pp. 719–738. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:

Elsevier.

8 Bechert, D. W., Bruse, M., Hage, W. & Meyer, R. 1997 Biological surfaces and their

technological application—laboratory and ﬂight experiments on drag reduction and separation

control. AIAA paper 97-1960.

9 Itoh, M., Tamano, S., Iguchi, R., Yokota, K., Akino, N., Hino, R. & Kubo, S. 2006 Turbulent

drag reduction by the seal fur surface. Phys. Fluids 18, 065102. (doi:10.1063/1.2204849)

10 Coustols, E. & Savill, A. M. 1992 Turbulent skin-friction drag reduction by active and passive

means: part I. In Skin friction drag reduction. AGARD report 786, pp. 8.1–8.53. Neuilly-sur-

Seine, France: AGARD.

11 Debisschop, J. R. & Nieuwstadt, F. T. M. 1996 Turbulent boundary layer in an adverse pressure

gradient: effectiveness of riblets. AIAA J. 34, 932–937. (doi:10.2514/3.13170)

1426 R. García-Mayoral and J. Jiménez

12 Lee, S.-J. & Jang, Y.-G. 2005 Control of ﬂow around a NACA 0012 airfoil with a micro-riblet

ﬁlm. J. Fluids Struct. 20, 659–672. (doi:10.1016/j.jﬂuidstructs.2005.03.003)

13 Viswanath, P. R. 2002 Aircraft viscous drag reduction using riblets. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 38,

571–600. (doi:10.1016/S0376-0421(02)00048-9)

14 Szodruch, J. 1991 Viscous drag reduction on transport aircraft. AIAA paper 91-0685.

15 Robert, J. F. 1992 Drag reduction: an industrial challenge. In Skin friction drag reduction.

AGARD report 786, pp. 2.1–2.15. Neuilly-sur-Seine, France: AGARD.

16 Roskam, J. 1987 Airplane design. Part VI: preliminary calculation of aerodynamic, thrust and

power characteristics. Ottawa, KS: Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corporation.

17 Vukoslavcevic, P., Wallace, J. M. & Balint, J.-L. 1992 Viscous drag reduction using streamwise

aligned riblets. AIAA J. 30, 1119–1122. (doi:10.2514/3.11035)

18 Park, S.-R. & Wallace, J. M. 1994 Flow alteration and drag reduction by riblets in a turbulent

boundary layer. AIAA J. 32, 31–38. (doi:10.2514/3.11947)

19 Lee, S.-J. & Lee, S.-H. 2001 Flow ﬁeld analysis of a turbulent boundary layer over a riblet

surface. Exp. Fluids 30, 153–166. (doi:10.1007/s003480000150)

20 Suzuki, Y. & Kasagi, N. 1994 Turbulent drag reduction mechanism above a riblet surface.

AIAA J. 32, 1781–1790. (doi:10.2514/3.12174)

21 Choi, H., Moin, P. & Kim, J. 1993 Direct numerical simulation of turbulent ﬂow over riblets.

J. Fluid Mech. 255, 503–539. (doi:10.1017/S0022112093002575)

22 Chu, D. C. & Karniadakis, G. E. M. 1993 A direct numerical simulation of laminar and turbulent

ﬂow over riblet-mounted surfaces. J. Fluid Mech. 250, 1–42. (doi:10.1017/S0022112093001363)

23 Goldstein, D. B., Handler, R. & Sirovich, L. 1995 Direct numerical simulation of turbulent

ﬂow over a modeled riblet covered surface. J. Fluid Mech. 302, 333–376. (doi:10.1017/

S0022112095004125)

24 Goldstein, D. B. & Tuan, T. C. 1998 Secondary ﬂow induced by riblets. J. Fluid Mech. 363,

115–151. (doi:10.1017/S0022112098008921)

25 El-Samni, O. A., Chun, H. H. & Yoon, H. S. 2007 Drag reduction of turbulent ﬂow over thin

rectangular riblets. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 45, 436–454. (doi:10.1016/j.ijengsci.2007.03.002)

26 García-Mayoral, R. & Jiménez, J. Submitted. Hydrodynamic stability and the breakdown of

the viscous regime over riblets.

27 Tennekes, H. & Lumley, J. L. 1972 A ﬁrst course in turbulence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

28 Luchini, P. 1995 Asymptotic analysis of laminar boundary-layer ﬂow over ﬁnely grooved

surfaces. Eur. J. Mech. B/Fluids 14, 169–195.

29 Bechert, D. W. & Bartenwerfer, M. 1989 The viscous ﬂow on surfaces with longitudinal ribs.

J. Fluid Mech. 206, 105–129. (doi:10.1017/S0022112089002247)

30 Luchini, P., Manzo, F. & Pozzi, A. 1991 Resistance of a grooved surface to parallel ﬂow and

cross-ﬂow. J. Fluid Mech. 228, 87–109. (doi:10.1017/S0022112091002641)

31 Orlandi, P. & Jiménez, J. 1994 On the generation of turbulent wall friction. Phys. Fluids 6,

634–641. (doi:10.1063/1.868303)

32 Clauser, F. 1956 The turbulent boundary layer. Adv. Appl. Mech. 4, 1–51. (doi:10.1016/

S0065-2156(08)70370-3)

33 Jiménez, J. 1994 On the structure and control of near wall turbulence. Phys. Fluids 6, 944–953.

(doi:10.1063/1.868327)

34 Koeltzsch, K., Dinkelacker, A. & Grundmann, R. 2002 Flow over convergent and divergent wall

riblets. Exp. Fluids 33, 346–350. (doi:10.1007/s00348-002-0446-3)

35 García-Mayoral, R. & Jiménez, J. 2007 On the effect of riblet geometry on drag reduction.

Technical report ETSIA/MF-072, School of Aeronautics, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid.

36 Hage, W., Bechert, D. W. & Bruse, M. 2000 Yaw angle effects on optimized riblets. In Proc.

CEAS/DragNet European Drag Reduction Conf. (ed. P. Thiede), pp. 278–285. Berlin, Germany:

Springer.

37 Walsh, M. J. 1990 Effect of detailed surface geometry on riblet drag reduction performance.

J. Aircr. 27, 572–573. (doi:10.2514/3.25323)

38 Jung, W., Mangiavacchi, N. & Akhavan, R. 1992 Supression of turbulence in wall-bounded ﬂows

by high-frequency spanwise oscillations. Phys. Fluids A 4, 1605–1607. (doi:10.1063/1.858381)

Drag reduction by riblets 1427

39 Jiménez, J. & Pinelli, A. 1999 The autonomous cycle of near wall turbulence. J. Fluid Mech.

389, 335–359. (doi:10.1017/S0022112099005066)

40 Raupach, M. R., Finnigan, J. & Brunet, Y. 1996 Coherent eddies and turbulence in vegetation

canopies: the mixing-layer analogy. Bound. Layer Meteorol. 78, 351–382. (doi:10.1007/

BF00120941)

41 Finnigan, J. 2000 Turbulence in plant canopies. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 32, 519–571.

(doi:10.1146/annurev.ﬂuid.32.1.519)

42 Jiménez, J., Uhlman, M., Pinelli, A. & Kawahara, G. 2001 Turbulent shear ﬂow over active

and passive porous surfaces. J. Fluid Mech. 442, 89–117. (doi:10.1017/S0022112001004888)

43 Breugem, W. P., Boersma, B. J. & Uittenbogaard, R. E. 2006 The inﬂuence of wall permeability

on turbulent channel ﬂow. J. Fluid Mech. 562, 35–72. (doi:10.1017/S0022112006000887)

44 Py, C., de Langre, E. & Moulia, B. 2006 A frequency lock-in mechanism in the interaction

between wind and crop canopies. J. Fluid Mech. 568, 425–449. (doi:10.1017/S002211200

6002667)

- Star Tutorial 1Încărcat deDeepto Banerjee
- Final Fe Fluid Practice ProblemsÎncărcat deMahmoud Helmy
- mit paper morrisonÎncărcat deRahul Chandel
- X-foil manualÎncărcat dejrdcrespo
- Pop Bal.pdfÎncărcat deRoxan Bueno Mora
- 08-turbÎncărcat deFelipe Consuegra
- Performance and dragÎncărcat deBart Siwiec Zygmunt
- Liquid Circulation, Bubble Size Distributions, And Solids Movement in Two- And Three-phase Bubble ColumnsÎncărcat deLim Hyeon Seung
- MandorleÎncărcat deimana nushif
- Numerical and Experimental Study of a Transitional Separation BubbleÎncărcat deAditia Riski
- 91319c0322fe806c99d6f57173a6e08b6c6bÎncărcat deHasn FX
- ps4.pdfÎncărcat deverbicar
- Effect of mainstream air velocity on velocity profile over a rough flat surfaceÎncărcat deInternational Journal of computational Engineering research (IJCER)
- Flushing Blasthole_Part IÎncărcat demaqul25
- The Accuracy of Hydormeter Analysis for Fine-Grained Clay ParticlesÎncărcat deYariceli Bernal Neri
- The Accuracy of Hydormeter Analysis for Fine-Grained Clay Particles.docxÎncărcat deYariceli Bernal Neri
- KUK 2015-2017 M.tech Thermal Credit BasedÎncărcat deUpender Dhull
- Chap 03.pdfÎncărcat deviniciusgfdp
- Parachute.docxÎncărcat deRonaldo Ulisi
- Literature Survey on Boundary Layer Flow ControlÎncărcat deRavi Kant
- Anderson J.D.- Computational Fluid DynamicsÎncărcat deivillen001
- Lectue Plan Fluid Mechanics ETME-212Încărcat deLalit Vashishth
- HydrodynamicStabilityTheoryÎncărcat deJeremy Binagia
- B.E. Mechatronics III to VIII SemÎncărcat demagesh.mx
- chapter_8_2006_02Încărcat deRicardo AC
- Quadratic Air ResistanceÎncărcat deherrJezni
- lid drive study.pdfÎncărcat deGaurav Vamja
- Aplikasi Persamaan BernouliÎncărcat deAbeh Ndut
- 29.9.16 B Tech Mech 3 4Sem CBCSÎncărcat deAnil Kumar B
- Fundal.rocket.stabilityÎncărcat deĐăng Khôi Trần

- CIMAC 2001Încărcat deseventhhemanth
- 16TPC-0556KurchukovÎncărcat deJae Ho LEE
- Wind Load Predicting- How Could CFD Replaced Wind Tunnel TestÎncărcat deadi
- KPM Crack Detection Part3Încărcat degammaprime
- Effects of Rear Spoilers on Ground Vehicle Aerodynamic DragÎncărcat deVyssion
- DengÎncărcat deK Vijay Anand
- Effect of Wind Direction through Double Storied Building Model Configurations in Wind TunnelÎncărcat deinventionjournals
- alicinar14.12.2010_12.23.15bildiriÎncărcat dePrasad Bairy
- Wind Load on Porous MediaÎncărcat demomo honey
- Airfoils and Camber[1]Încărcat dedebashisneogi
- ELDWIN Report on Supersonic Wind TunnelÎncărcat deeldwin_dj7216
- Wind TunnelÎncărcat deRiggs Marasigan
- CEAS2015_074Încărcat deSantosa Edy Wibowo
- AE331 Lab ManualÎncărcat deRahul Goud
- Mathematical Model of the CH-53 HelicopterÎncărcat desmith1011
- Confidence in Fluid System Design_Mentor GraphicsÎncărcat deDiego Aguirre
- Loading on Tall StructuresÎncărcat dechetan talawar
- Aeroacoustics FlapÎncărcat deAmy Moody
- Thesis Full Final Sept7Încărcat deNadeem Hassoon
- Curiosi DadÎncărcat dedsdfqe
- Microsoft Word - full chapter -revise after viva ok(1).pdfÎncărcat deIhsanul Ridho
- Flow VisualizationÎncărcat deSandeep Gahlawat
- AIAA-2009-878Încărcat depopis
- 3431Încărcat desahan
- Flow Physics of a Race Car Wing With Vortex Generators in Ground EffectÎncărcat deVyssion
- andaman methodologyÎncărcat deSK Swain
- The control of #ow separation by periodic excitationÎncărcat deJoao
- Wind Tunnel CorrectionÎncărcat deSetyo Nugroho
- Application of Glyphbased TechniquesÎncărcat deMarko Perčić
- Fundamentals of Flow VisualizationÎncărcat densa10124

## Mult mai mult decât documente.

Descoperiți tot ce are Scribd de oferit, inclusiv cărți și cărți audio de la editori majori.

Anulați oricând.